Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does God Really Exist???
Cthulhu
Member (Idle past 5852 days)
Posts: 273
From: Roe Dyelin
Joined: 09-09-2003


Message 31 of 305 (87037)
02-17-2004 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by CreationMan
02-17-2004 1:56 PM


Re: Spoiled Brat
I originally responded to this post:
Yes Alexander Fleming did invent penicillin, but who invented Alexander Fleming??? Who gave him the knowledge, who allowed him to be born, who gave him the breathe of life?
GOD
Could you kindly point out the "Let's suppose" in this?
And you have yet to explain why that is not circular reasoning. In fact, you have not even acknowledged that my point that it is circular reasoning even exists.

Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by CreationMan, posted 02-17-2004 1:56 PM CreationMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by CreationMan, posted 02-17-2004 5:07 PM Cthulhu has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 305 (87043)
02-17-2004 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Phat
02-17-2004 2:19 PM


quote:
And it is my Belief that God cares. I certainly like your humor, Dan.
Thanks!
As for God caring... he might well care, if he does in fact exist. But as I've said before... telling me that God cares is a little like telling me that in a parallel universe, I'm in a polygamous marriage with Eliza Dushku, Angelina Jolie, and the girl who plays Chloe on Smallville.
Good to know. Kinda nice, even. But it doesn't really impact on my life, now does it?

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Phat, posted 02-17-2004 2:19 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by nator, posted 02-20-2004 9:15 AM Dan Carroll has replied

CreationMan
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 305 (87084)
02-17-2004 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by AdminBrian
02-17-2004 2:03 PM


Thanks Admin Brian, I really appreciate your input. With all due respect, however, I think I can handle these guys.

"The Fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'"
Creation Man

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by AdminBrian, posted 02-17-2004 2:03 PM AdminBrian has not replied

CreationMan
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 305 (87085)
02-17-2004 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Cthulhu
02-17-2004 2:30 PM


The Point
Look when I said "let's suppose" I was reffering to something completely different and to a different member.
Secondly, My point is this. You say that we cannot prove Scientifically that God Exists, so why DO we believe in him? True, we cannot PROVE that God does exist. But by that same virtue, we cannot prove Scientifically that God does NOT exist. So why DON'T you believe in him. There is far more scientific evidence to weigh in support of there being a God than not. That is my point.
Welcome Phatboy, it is good to have you here.
BTW Dan, I agree with Phatboy, your wit is entertaining. It is actually fun to converse with you (which is a lot more than I can say for most of the other members on this forum).

"The Fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'"
Creation Man

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Cthulhu, posted 02-17-2004 2:30 PM Cthulhu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by NosyNed, posted 02-17-2004 5:17 PM CreationMan has not replied
 Message 36 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-17-2004 5:18 PM CreationMan has not replied
 Message 37 by :æ:, posted 02-17-2004 5:19 PM CreationMan has not replied
 Message 289 by neil88, posted 04-04-2004 11:52 AM CreationMan has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 35 of 305 (87087)
02-17-2004 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by CreationMan
02-17-2004 5:07 PM


Re: The Point
You say that we cannot prove Scientifically that God Exists, so why DO we believe in him? True, we cannot PROVE that God does exist. But by that same virtue, we cannot prove Scientifically that God does NOT exist. So why DON'T you believe in him. There is far more scientific evidence to weigh in support of there being a God than not. That is my point.
You manage to contradict yourself. There isn't any evidence that God doesn't exist, that's true. (If you are careful to describe God correctly, anyway). There is also no way to prove that kind of God exists either. As you appear to agree.
There is no evidence against God, there is no evidence for God either. There is not "far more" evidence. There is no evidence one way or the other.
Those who choose to believe do so based on faith, not evidence. Others choose to limit what they believe solely on faith.
If faith is all that is needed. I can believe in anything. Anything at all. Why should I choose your particular definition of God to believe in?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by CreationMan, posted 02-17-2004 5:07 PM CreationMan has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 305 (87088)
02-17-2004 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by CreationMan
02-17-2004 5:07 PM


Re: The Point
quote:
Secondly, My point is this. You say that we cannot prove Scientifically that God Exists, so why DO we believe in him? True, we cannot PROVE that God does exist. But by that same virtue, we cannot prove Scientifically that God does NOT exist. So why DON'T you believe in him. There is far more scientific evidence to weigh in support of there being a God than not. That is my point.
And I think this is where you're not getting it, CM. We have yet to see this scientific evidence in support of there being a God. Please present it if it's there.
From where I'm standing though, there's no evidence one way or the other. So as far as what's in front of me, I see no God. Sure, there could be one. I guess.
And sure, despite there being no evidence one way or the other, there could also be a giant robot juggling planets somewhere on the other side of the galaxy. I guess.
And... so?
The possibility of there being a God is about as likely to me as there being a giant planet-juggling robot somewhere out near Trafalmadore... and has about as much relevance to my life.
quote:
BTW Dan, I agree with Phatboy, your wit is entertaining.
Thanks to you too!

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by CreationMan, posted 02-17-2004 5:07 PM CreationMan has not replied

:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7185 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 37 of 305 (87090)
02-17-2004 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by CreationMan
02-17-2004 5:07 PM


Re: The Point
CreationMan writes:
There is far more scientific evidence to weigh in support of there being a God than not.
Such as?
ADDED IN EDIT:
So why DON'T you believe in him.
I haven't seen any convincing evidence that might warrant belief in his existence. It's the same reason I don't believe in gremlins, djinns, the tatzelwurm, the loch ness monster, the chupacabra, etc...
[This message has been edited by ::, 02-17-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by CreationMan, posted 02-17-2004 5:07 PM CreationMan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-17-2004 5:56 PM :æ: has replied

Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 305 (87102)
02-17-2004 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by :æ:
02-17-2004 5:19 PM


Re: The Point
::
Give us a definition by which we can identify evidence as scientific or not, so we know how to answer your question.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by :æ:, posted 02-17-2004 5:19 PM :æ: has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by :æ:, posted 02-17-2004 6:05 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7185 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 39 of 305 (87105)
02-17-2004 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-17-2004 5:56 PM


Re: The Point
Scientific evidence is that which is collected via methodological naturalism, i.e. it is a confirmed prediction of a scientific hypothesis that is repeatably testable/observable and falsifiable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-17-2004 5:56 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-17-2004 6:48 PM :æ: has replied

Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 305 (87113)
02-17-2004 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by :æ:
02-17-2004 6:05 PM


Re: The Point
::
Does Del Washburn's Theomatics qualify?
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by :æ:, posted 02-17-2004 6:05 PM :æ: has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by :æ:, posted 02-17-2004 7:15 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7185 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 41 of 305 (87125)
02-17-2004 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-17-2004 6:48 PM


Hardly
Which independant institute has repeated his observations?
Which similar-in-length non-biblical texts were analyzed for control?
On what basis did Washburn select the texts to analyze out of the many different versions in existence? No original copy of any book in the Bible has survived, so how do we know that his selections are valid?
After all that, how do we know this is not the work of Loki, the trickster god who desires to lead credulous Christians astray?
[This message has been edited by ::, 02-17-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-17-2004 6:48 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-17-2004 7:43 PM :æ: has replied
 Message 47 by Phat, posted 02-18-2004 2:14 AM :æ: has not replied

Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 305 (87129)
02-17-2004 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by :æ:
02-17-2004 7:15 PM


Re: Hardly
::
Which independant institute has repeated his observations?
None that I know of, but they could. Wasn't it repeatable, not repeated, that was the standard?
Which similar-in-length non-biblical texts were analyzed for control?
It will take me a while to find the site, which is posted somewhere in this forum, where the study of repeating Theomatic tests on a control text failed to generate results. I think Washburn also did this.
On what basis did Washburn select the texts to analyze out of the many different versions in existence? No original copy of any book in the Bible has survived, so how do we know that his selections are valid?
Don't know offhand. To find any version that retained the statistical patterns proves that such patterns exist in a document that God supposedly wrote and supposedly is currently protecting from historical loss.
After all that, how do we know this is not the work of Loki, the trickster god who desires to lead credulous Christians astray?
Any scientific evidence for such an ad hoc notion?
What do you do with the several prayer studies that found statistically significant results? Admittedly irregularly replicated, but methodologies have varied, too, so ....
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by :æ:, posted 02-17-2004 7:15 PM :æ: has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by CreationMan, posted 02-17-2004 8:35 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied
 Message 46 by :æ:, posted 02-17-2004 10:14 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

CreationMan
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 305 (87141)
02-17-2004 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-17-2004 7:43 PM


Re: Hardly
Hey Stephen! Good to have you here.
Don't worry guys I'm not forgetting about you or your replies. I will be responding tomorrow when I have time...
.....and I'll bring the evidence for God with me.

"The Fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'"
Creation Man

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-17-2004 7:43 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

Lizard Breath
Member (Idle past 6696 days)
Posts: 376
Joined: 10-19-2003


Message 44 of 305 (87143)
02-17-2004 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Darwin's Terrier
02-17-2004 8:01 AM


Malaria?
Where'd you get malaria from?

quote:
If I stand out in the woods and say something but my wife isn't there to hear it, am I still wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 02-17-2004 8:01 AM Darwin's Terrier has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Lizard Breath, posted 02-17-2004 9:23 PM Lizard Breath has not replied
 Message 51 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 02-18-2004 6:35 AM Lizard Breath has not replied

Lizard Breath
Member (Idle past 6696 days)
Posts: 376
Joined: 10-19-2003


Message 45 of 305 (87145)
02-17-2004 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Lizard Breath
02-17-2004 9:09 PM


Re: Malaria?
Test page


"If I stand jin the middle of the woods and say something but my wife isn't there to hear it, am I still wrong? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh Yeah!!



This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Lizard Breath, posted 02-17-2004 9:09 PM Lizard Breath has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024